← IMC Interview Insights

IMC·Software Engineer·Onsite - System Design / Architecture·Intermediate

IntermediatePrefer not to say
Apr 2026

Summary

IMC system design round for a software engineering role, one big question that kept branching into follow-ups. The core ask was straightforward but the discussion went pretty deep into concurrency and data structure trade-offs, which I wasn't fully prepared for.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Design an in-memory hotel booking system (no database) that supports room search by date range, filtering by hotel/room type/price, booking, cancellation, modification, and listing a customer's bookings.

System DesignAlgorithms & Data StructuresData Modeling
Author's notes

I started with a basic map of room IDs to booking lists and thought I was on solid ground.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and defining core entities (Hotel, Room, Booking, Customer) and their relationships. Then design data structures and algorithms for search, booking, cancellation, and modification, focusing on efficiency and correctness. Finally, discuss trade-offs, edge cases, and potential optimizations.

Pro tip: Emphasize concurrency control and idempotency for booking operations, as real-world systems must handle simultaneous requests without double-booking. Also, consider using interval trees or segment trees for efficient date-range searches.

1. Clarify Requirements and Scope

Ask questions to understand expected scale, consistency needs, and specific features (e.g., overbooking policy, payment handling). Define functional and non-functional requirements.

2. Design Data Model

Identify core entities (Hotel, Room, RoomType, Booking, Customer) and their attributes. Define relationships and choose appropriate data structures (e.g., maps, sets, trees) for in-memory storage.

3. Design Core Operations

Outline algorithms for search (filtering by date, hotel, type, price), booking (checking availability, creating booking), cancellation, modification, and listing customer bookings. Consider time/space complexity.

4. Address Edge Cases and Concurrency

Discuss handling of overlapping bookings, date validation, concurrent access (locks, transactions), and failure scenarios. Ensure idempotency for booking and cancellation.

5. Discuss Trade-offs and Optimizations

Compare alternative data structures (e.g., interval trees vs. sorted lists for availability), indexing strategies, and caching. Mention scalability limits of in-memory approach.

Key Points to Mention

  • Efficient date-range search using interval trees or segment trees to quickly find available rooms.
  • Data structures for fast filtering: inverted indexes or hash maps for hotel, room type, and price range.
  • Concurrency control mechanisms (e.g., locks, optimistic concurrency) to prevent double-booking.
  • Booking lifecycle management: creation, modification (date/room changes), cancellation, and status tracking.
  • Handling of edge cases: invalid date ranges, overlapping bookings, and partial availability.
  • Trade-offs between memory usage and query performance, and potential need for persistence or external storage at scale.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q2

Two clients try to book the same room at the same time. How do you handle that without a database?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This is where I felt most shaky.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the constraints: is this a single server or distributed system? Then propose a solution using in-memory synchronization primitives (e.g., mutexes, atomic operations) or a centralized lock service like Redis. Discuss trade-offs around consistency, availability, and scalability, and mention how you would handle failures and race conditions.

Pro tip: Emphasize that without a database, you need an external source of truth for coordination; a common pitfall is assuming a single server, so explicitly address distributed scenarios and how you'd achieve consensus (e.g., using Redis, ZooKeeper, or a consensus algorithm).

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask about the scale, whether it's a single server or distributed, and the consistency requirements (e.g., strong vs eventual). This sets the stage for choosing the right approach.

2. Identify a coordination mechanism

Propose using an in-memory lock (e.g., mutex) for single-server, or a distributed lock service (e.g., Redis, etcd) for multi-server. Explain how it ensures only one client can book the room at a time.

3. Handle race conditions and atomicity

Describe how to make the check-and-book operation atomic, such as using compare-and-swap (CAS) or Lua scripts in Redis. Mention the need for timeouts and idempotency to handle retries.

4. Discuss failure modes and trade-offs

Address what happens if the lock service fails, network partitions occur, or the lock expires. Compare trade-offs: strong consistency vs availability, latency, and complexity.

5. Summarize and conclude

Recap the chosen solution, why it fits the constraints, and any assumptions made. Optionally mention how a database would simplify this, but focus on the no-database constraint.

Key Points to Mention

  • Distributed locking with Redis (SETNX, Redlock) or etcd/ZooKeeper
  • Atomic operations: compare-and-swap, Lua scripting, or transactions in Redis
  • Single-server solution: mutex, semaphore, or synchronized block
  • Handling failures: lock timeouts, retries, idempotency, and fencing tokens
  • Trade-offs: consistency vs availability (CAP theorem), latency, and scalability
  • Alternative: optimistic concurrency control with versioning and conflict resolution

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q3

Persistence is out of scope, but if you had to snapshot and restore the in-memory state on restart, how would you approach it?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Felt like a curveball at the end.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Acknowledge that persistence is out of scope, then outline a snapshot-and-restore mechanism that serializes the in-memory state to durable storage on shutdown and deserializes it on startup. Focus on trade-offs like snapshot frequency, consistency, and performance impact, and mention how you would handle partial failures or versioning.

Pro tip: Emphasize that you would design the snapshot format to be backward-compatible and include a version number, so future changes don't break restores. Also, mention that you'd consider incremental snapshots or write-ahead logs if full snapshots are too heavy, showing you think about scalability.

1. Clarify scope and requirements

Confirm that persistence is out of scope but snapshot/restore is a hypothetical. Ask about expected state size, acceptable downtime, and consistency requirements.

2. Choose a serialization format

Select a format like JSON, Protobuf, or a binary format based on performance, readability, and schema evolution needs. Consider compression if state is large.

3. Design the snapshot trigger and storage

Decide when to snapshot (e.g., on graceful shutdown, periodically) and where to store it (local disk, object storage). Ensure atomic writes to avoid corruption.

4. Implement restore with validation

On startup, load the snapshot, validate its integrity and version, and handle errors gracefully (e.g., fall back to empty state or alert).

5. Discuss trade-offs and alternatives

Compare full vs. incremental snapshots, synchronous vs. asynchronous, and mention alternatives like write-ahead logs or event sourcing if applicable.

Key Points to Mention

  • Serialization format choice and schema evolution (e.g., versioning, backward compatibility)
  • Atomicity and consistency of snapshots (e.g., write to temp file then rename)
  • Performance impact: snapshot size, frequency, and I/O overhead
  • Error handling during restore (corrupted snapshot, version mismatch)
  • Alternative approaches like incremental snapshots or write-ahead logs
  • Security considerations: encryption and access control for snapshot data

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.